DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS

No Need to Spell Out Discrimination Claims Before Deciding Disability Status, Says the EAT

In JP v Spelthorne Borough Council [2025] EAT 127, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has confirmed that it's perfectly acceptable to decide whether someone is disabled under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 (the Act) before working out the full details of their discrimination claims.

In JP v Spelthorne Borough Council, the claimant had brought various claims, including disability discrimination, following her dismissal. At a preliminary hearing, the tribunal decided she wasn’t disabled under section 6 of the Act during the relevant period (from the earliest alleged act of discrimination up to the dismissal date).

Why not?

Well, the judge found that although the claimant had suffered impairments, the effects hadn’t lasted (and weren’t likely to last) for 12 months or more. Crucially, the impairments were a reaction to a specific work situation that wasn’t likely to recur. So, no long-term adverse effect = no disability under the Act.

"But you didn’t even identify the allegations!" — the appeal argument

On appeal, the claimant argued that the tribunal had jumped the gun. She said the judge should have first set out the specific allegations of disability discrimination, pointing to Cox v Adecco Group UK and Ireland [2021] for support. That case stressed the importance of identifying issues before striking out a whistleblowing claim.

But the EAT (Judge Keith) wasn’t convinced. Cox involved whistleblowing, a more “multi-faceted” type of claim, where it’s essential to pin down the issues before deciding whether the claim can stand. In contrast, the question in JP was far more straightforward: was the claimant disabled during the relevant period?

The EAT made clear there’s no “hard-edged rule” that a tribunal must define the claims before deciding whether someone has a protected characteristic. It’s a case-by-case judgment, and here, the tribunal was within its rights to make that call early on.

What about the appeal stage?

The claimant also argued that the judge should have considered whether she was disabled up to the conclusion of the dismissal appeal (not just at the dismissal date). She leaned on O'Brien v Bolton St Catherine's Academy [2017], where the court said the employer had to justify the whole decision-making process, including the appeal, in a disability-related dismissal.

But again, the EAT wasn’t persuaded. O'Brien was a capability dismissal linked to a disability. This case wasn’t, it was about a breakdown in the employment relationship, with no ongoing or new discrimination alleged after dismissal. The EAT pointed out that the claimant’s pleadings and impact statement, on the face of it, made no mention of any post-dismissal discriminatory treatment, so the tribunal had no obligation to look beyond the termination date.

Takeaway points:

• Tribunals can deal with disability status as a preliminary issue without needing to unpack the full list of discrimination allegations first.

• Cox v Adecco doesn’t create a blanket rule — it applies to more complex claims like whistleblowing.

• If a claimant wants to rely on events beyond dismissal (e.g. appeal decisions), they need to explicitly plead them.

• This case is a useful reminder that not all dismissals of disabled employees trigger the full range of Equality Act 2010 protections — context is everything.